What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 8:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:26 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:52 am
Where?


Don't be too hasty in blaming others when its is your doing.
I picked your post and quoted it before you edited and added the last part.
Note my counter to that.

Trump disciple??
That is a cheap defense to the argument.
That you believe Trump is bad or evil is because you had been brainwashed and zombied by the bias media driven by tribalism and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Objectively, I believe Trump, re his job appraisal taking into account the positives and negative, did a great job [net positive] relative to his terms of employment as a Government servant and employee.
Where is your sense of objectivity and rationality in relation to Trump and his contractual terms of employment?
1 Your claim that there are moral facts 'specific' to the moral FSK assumes there is a moral FSK within which there are moral facts, which begs the question. Waste of time.
My claim is the same that there are scientific facts specific to the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK is constructed informally among practicing scientists and is not assumed.
My moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.
Are you saying the scientific facts/truths from a Scientific FSK relied on begging the question?
2 As for Trump, that you support such an utterly morally disgusting man and his policies is a QED against moral objectivism, as far as I'm concerned.
Your views of Trump are very emotional and subjective as being brainwashed by the one-sided media driven by tribalism.
I am not too bothered by Trump's personal behavior and attitude.
You are too subjective, on what basis you rate Trump as being morally disgusting, where is your objective proofs and justifications.

As I had stated I am very objective is assessing his job performance required within his term of employment as an employees of the US Government.
I belief [based on evidences], taking into the pluses and minuses in his job, Trump's appraisal result is a net-plus - objectively.
Natural science factual assertions are empirically falsifiable - if only inductively. Moral assertions are not empirically falsifiable - not even inductively. And that's the difference.

I can't falsify your moral opinion of Trump, any more than you can falsify mine. We just disagree - and we have our reasons for doing so.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:42 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:00 pm 1 There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.

2 In my opinion, Trump and his policies are utterly morally disgusting.

There's no inconsistency between those two assertions. Obviously.
No...but only so long as you have no ambition at all to suggest anyone else should agree with you. The minute you suggest that even one person is even slightly morally obligated to join you in your opinion, you've departed "Subjectivist Island" and joined all the moral objectivists on the mainland.
So you agree there's no inconsistency between my two assertions. But earlier you wrote this:

'Moral subjectivists can't even stay consistent, their view is so impossible; they have to tell you you're morally "objectively wrong" to believe in moral objectivism.'

That's an astronomical level of unawareness.'

1 So the inconsistency is yours, not mine.
2 Who ever says others should be obliged to share a moral opinion? What sort of fascism is that? Ah - you're a theist. Enough said.
3 The burden of proof for the existence of moral facts is with moral realists and objectivists - unmet so far, to my knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5477
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:12 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:15 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:00 pm 1 There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.

2 In my opinion, Trump and his policies are utterly morally disgusting.

There's no inconsistency between those two assertions. Obviously.
when you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact

when you say ORANGE MAN, in my opinion, is utterly morally disgusting you offer opinion

the first, by your reckoning, is false

the second, by your reckoning, is all you have

quit tryin' to have it both ways
Wrong. Since there are no moral facts, any moral assertion expresses an opinion which can't be factually verified or falsified. The linking verb 'is' has a different function in factual and non-factual assertions. Merely insisting that it doesn't begs the question.

If I say 'This painting is beautiful', I'm expressing an aesthetic opinion - and I can always explain my reasons for doing so. But if someone else says 'No, this painting is ugly - for these reasons', there's no way to settle the matter. There's no aesthetic fact of the matter. To appeal to an 'aesthetic FSK', in which there are aesthetic standards, is merely to beg the question.

Now, pari passu for moral assertions.
Wrong!!

There is an aesthetic FSK for painting [within painters, museums, art collectors, auction houses, art experts, those who appreciate arts and others] which is objectified with actual money paid for the price of each painting in correlation to the inherent standards within the FSK.

If you research into its depth, there are inherent evolutionary objective standards for aesthetic in paintings and similarly in photography.
For example, in general [not in EVERY case] if one's picture has a horizon that is not level, it is not rated beautiful [subconsciously] and thus has low or no value to the observer or judge.
It sort of cause internal uneasiness to the observers [perhaps for some a headache] because humans has evolved with a natural cognition of a leveled horizon that facilitate exploration and hunting necessary for survival.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:12 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:15 pm

when you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact

when you say ORANGE MAN, in my opinion, is utterly morally disgusting you offer opinion

the first, by your reckoning, is false

the second, by your reckoning, is all you have

quit tryin' to have it both ways
Wrong. Since there are no moral facts, any moral assertion expresses an opinion which can't be factually verified or falsified. The linking verb 'is' has a different function in factual and non-factual assertions. Merely insisting that it doesn't begs the question.

If I say 'This painting is beautiful', I'm expressing an aesthetic opinion - and I can always explain my reasons for doing so. But if someone else says 'No, this painting is ugly - for these reasons', there's no way to settle the matter. There's no aesthetic fact of the matter. To appeal to an 'aesthetic FSK', in which there are aesthetic standards, is merely to beg the question.

Now, pari passu for moral assertions.
Wrong!!

There is an aesthetic FSK for painting [within painters, museums, art collectors, auction houses, art experts, those who appreciate arts and others] which is objectified with actual money paid for the price of each painting in correlation to the inherent standards within the FSK.
Which has been wholly ignored by the latest generation of artists, as they, in their own time ignored the last set of ideas about what constitutes "art".
FFS
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5477
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 8:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:26 pm
1 Your claim that there are moral facts 'specific' to the moral FSK assumes there is a moral FSK within which there are moral facts, which begs the question. Waste of time.
My claim is the same that there are scientific facts specific to the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK is constructed informally among practicing scientists and is not assumed.
My moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.
Are you saying the scientific facts/truths from a Scientific FSK relied on begging the question?
2 As for Trump, that you support such an utterly morally disgusting man and his policies is a QED against moral objectivism, as far as I'm concerned.
Your views of Trump are very emotional and subjective as being brainwashed by the one-sided media driven by tribalism.
I am not too bothered by Trump's personal behavior and attitude.
You are too subjective, on what basis you rate Trump as being morally disgusting, where is your objective proofs and justifications.

As I had stated I am very objective is assessing his job performance required within his term of employment as an employees of the US Government.
I belief [based on evidences], taking into the pluses and minuses in his job, Trump's appraisal result is a net-plus - objectively.
Natural science factual assertions are empirically falsifiable - if only inductively. Moral assertions are not empirically falsifiable - not even inductively. And that's the difference.
We have gone tru this.

Note the need to difference between
the assertion of moral decisions & its judgment and
the assertion of moral facts.

The assertion of moral facts are inductively inferred and are falsifiable like scientific truths.
I can't falsify your moral opinion of Trump, any more than you can falsify mine. We just disagree - and we have our reasons for doing so.
I did not make any moral opinion of Trump, you did.
As far as I am concern, there are no serious moral issue with Trump in his contracted job as President of the USA.

I made the objective claim, the appraisal of Trump job as US President, an employee of the US government, in reference to his job description is say 80/100 which is a net-plus and good. I would rate Obama at 40/100.
The above rating is objective via listing all the negatives and positive achievements [with relevant weightings] he has done during his tenure as President.
The only serious negative for Trump is he did not handle the current Covid19 pandemic well but this negative is not sufficient to negate all his other positives in the previous years since his appointment.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5477
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:12 am
Wrong. Since there are no moral facts, any moral assertion expresses an opinion which can't be factually verified or falsified. The linking verb 'is' has a different function in factual and non-factual assertions. Merely insisting that it doesn't begs the question.

If I say 'This painting is beautiful', I'm expressing an aesthetic opinion - and I can always explain my reasons for doing so. But if someone else says 'No, this painting is ugly - for these reasons', there's no way to settle the matter. There's no aesthetic fact of the matter. To appeal to an 'aesthetic FSK', in which there are aesthetic standards, is merely to beg the question.

Now, pari passu for moral assertions.
Wrong!!

There is an aesthetic FSK for painting [within painters, museums, art collectors, auction houses, art experts, those who appreciate arts and others] which is objectified with actual money paid for the price of each painting in correlation to the inherent standards within the FSK.
Which has been wholly ignored by the latest generation of artists, as they, in their own time ignored the last set of ideas about what constitutes "art".
FFS
Ignoramus.

Did the latest generation ignored the Mona Lisa and many other famous realism paintings from the past?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5477
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Walker wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:58 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:27 pm You've been propagandized. Suckered by anaesthetising right wing media. Fake news.
Nope. I don't rely on sound bites, and I'm aware of the propaganda.

Go on, do some research into your border-children issue.
The truth is out there but you have to surf a bit, and think clearly.

You sure won't find it on Leftist media.

I'm also aware of the futility of doing the research for you.
However, I will do the thinking for you.
I also read the Left also do not appreciate the family unit but rather break them up and rely on the welfare system to take care of the individuals.

Here is one [quick search] articles among the others'

Why the Left hates families: MELANIE PHIILLIPS reveals how the selfish sneers of Guardianistas made her see how the Left actively fosters – and revels in – family breakdown... Link
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Walker wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:58 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:27 pm You've been propagandized. Suckered by anaesthetising right wing media. Fake news.
Nope. I don't rely on sound bites, and I'm aware of the propaganda.

Go on, do some research into your border-children issue.
The truth is out there but you have to surf a bit, and think clearly.

You sure won't find it on Leftist media.

I'm also aware of the futility of doing the research for you.

*

However, I will do the thinking for you.

As an incentive I assert that for my generosity you now have the obligation to also think and express your thoughts in dialogue. As an assertion of your identity you may respond that you have no moral obligation to respond in any way that I require. I may claim you have an obligation of fairness and you may claim, fairness for whom? To that I say, fairness to yourself, so that you benefit from your own writing, as I benefit from mine.

Allow me to offer a few portals into your research.

Why are the kids even there in the first place? Why did their parents illegally bring them into the country? Joe Biden said he and Barack O. put the kids in cages to protect them. Is that the truth of why they caged the children, and if so, protect them from what? Right-wingers? Dig a little. Think.

What’s the alternative to the situation as it is? And by the way, where are the parents? I can guarantee you that if for some unimaginable reason my children were detained by the authorities because they tried to sneak into a foreign country, knowing that thousands of miles and perhaps a few other countries would be between us, guided by a human trafficker who just might be a woman with a woman’s soft sell of persuasion … well then, under such a situation, the authorities would have no problem at all finding me. I would find them, come hell or high water, by any means necessary.

What kind of a parent scratches together 10K to send their unaccompanied, unprotected child on a long-distance journey where statistics show the child stands a good chance of being raped and enslaved to pimps, a probability so much so that the little girls are given birth control pills to take along.

Yes, not only do the parents give their child away, they pay 10K to do it. This is a nuts and bolts, cost/benefit decision where the child’s welfare is obviously not primary in the parents’ equation. Quite an arrangement. The parents don’t even sell their children. They give them away to anyone who will also accept 10K.

What are the possible reasons for such a thing to happen?

- Either the parents’ rational faculties were twisted with some heavy propaganda, such as … no problem, once the children cross the border they’re detained for awhile, they get the best medical care and healthy food, they get to use indoor plumbing maybe for the first time, they get to go to school, they get clothes, and at the very worst they get sent back. Look at it as an educational excursion, with benefits.

-The parents say, but we don’t want them sent back, conditions are too bad here. We don’t have any of that stuff and worst of all, not only do we have no opportunity to improve our miserable lot in life, we have nothing to offer. No modern job skills, no academic degrees, nothing that authorities desire from legal immigrants.

- The coyote says that’s easy, just don’t go claim them or check up on them. They will be fine, for Americans are humane people, and quite generous. The kids may be temporarily kept in makeshift conditions for awhile simply because we’re flooding the border with so many people all at once, but eventually the overburdening of the system will force them to build large facilities to handle the open borders that are coming in the future, so that the authorities can at least make a cursory check for diseases, and the afflicted can be isolated in large indoor complexes that even now are being planned by some future, Progressive administration. As you must now know, we are overwhelming the border system and that might expedite your child’s release to a relative already in the country because there are strong rumours of waivers and changes in fundamental rules.

- Or, perhaps the parents don’t value their children, which is kind of weird since they laid out the cash and maybe even sold their souls to get the cash. Doesn’t seem likely.

- Let’s see. Assemble a mob of 500. Charge them each 10K for travel expenses and then either walk, hop a freight, or get on one of these buses that someone has provided. Rape the women on the journey because you are an immoral human trafficker and not the salesman who collected the cash from the parents, which accounts for the longer journey by foot. Quite a business model. Healthy profit in people.

- Why do these people want to get into the USA anyway, and more importantly, why are Progressives so hellbent on getting in as many of the great unwashed as possible?

- Don’t be coy, you know why. It wasn’t just for a chance for the Obama administration to exercise inhumanity by putting children in cages, like dogs. Neither was it a chance for the Trump administration to display inhumanity to the world, although it is rumored by propagandists that the objective of the Trump administration is to make all folks drink dirty water and sleep in a hollow log.

- No, all the fuss is for one-party rule because if the parents are stupid enough to send their unprotected, unaccompanied children on a harrowing, life-threatening journey, then they’re stupid enough to vote Democrat once the borders are opened, when they can follow their children, and all those yet to have children can also follow.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Or something like that. (And thanks, but I'll do my own thinking.)

I find your kind of temporising morally disgusting. But then, the rationalising of moral atrocity is nothing new. It's purpose is to soothe the conscience. After all, the hordes of morally imbecilic Trumpets - and not just the swivel-eyed vangies - can't have their hypocrisy exposed.

So you think it morally justifiable to punish children for the actions of their parents. How very Christian.

Point is, you think it morally justifiable, but I and many others don't. And, anyway, this discussion is about moral objectivity - and there's no moral fact of the matter to settle the argument.
Walker
Posts: 7941
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Walker »

No Bub, the point is, after ignoring all the valid points and ignoring the legitimate questions generously offered in the spirit of constructive dialogue, and that begin to penetrate the complexity of the issue, you obviously do need some assistance with thinking, and less reliance on your simplistic, sound-bite, propagandizing judgments of others.

Once they are taken into legal custody, what’s immoral, stupid, and probably illegal, is not protecting those children from the irresponsibility that put them into such a position.

What’s disgusting is creating the situation in the first place, via the executive branch of government flouting legislated immigration laws at the highest levels of government, thereby creating a flood at the border, and then the corruption filtering down through the ranks and the complicit media, and then using the resulting mass of humanity, and children, as a propagandizing, political weapon.

Those kids will be fine, waiting to be claimed, as long as they’re not released unprotected into the wild, as so many were down there in the third world.

Migrants, young and old, are not always related. Border Patrol says fear of child trafficking forces separations
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bo ... story.html

We shall continue the vigil for a constructive contribution.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Walker wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:50 am No Bub, the point is, after ignoring all the valid points and ignoring the legitimate questions generously offered in the spirit of constructive dialogue, and that begin to penetrate the complexity of the issue, you obviously do need some assistance with thinking, and less reliance on your simplistic, sound-bite, propagandizing judgments of others.

Once they are taken into legal custody, what’s immoral, stupid, and probably illegal, is not protecting those children from the irresponsibility that put them into such a position.

What’s disgusting is creating the situation in the first place, via the executive branch of government flouting legislated immigration laws at the highest levels of government, and then the corruption filtering down through the ranks and the media, and then using the resulting mass of humanity, and children, as a propagandizing, political weapon.

Those kids will be fine, waiting to be claimed, as long as they’re not released unprotected into the wild, as so many were down there in the third world.

Migrants, young and old, are not always related. Border Patrol says fear of child trafficking forces separations
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bo ... story.html

We shall continue the vigil for a constructive contribution.
Do you think it morally justifiable to punish children for the actions of their parents? It's a yes or no question. Stop dodging.
Walker
Posts: 7941
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Walker »

Dodging? You idiot.

The children are not being punished, as I've explained.

Carry on. You are not worthy of my time.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Walker wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:59 am Dodging? You idiot.

The children are not being punished, as I've explained.

Carry on. You are not worthy of my time.
Separating little children from their parents is cruel. But hey - they're not being punished, so it's okay.

You can fuck off, you smug, self-important wanker.
Walker
Posts: 7941
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Walker »

Beats being an idiot, that's for dang sure.

It doesn't take a whole lot to reveal the shallowness of the Left.

Just a bit of truth, a bit of time, and the propaganda is revealed via inarticulate responses that reveal incomprehension.

Oh yeah.

Maybe you should wise up and address the content rather than the delusions banging around in that ideological noggin.

Now, I'll fuck off, because like I said, by your works you are a waste of my time.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:29 am Not quite: if we think there is any basis upon which we can convince others that they ought to share our moral opinion, then yes, we can only be moral objectivists.
Because for some reason, you can't imagine a non-objective basis, right?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9939
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:12 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:15 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:00 pm 1 There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.

2 In my opinion, Trump and his policies are utterly morally disgusting.

There's no inconsistency between those two assertions. Obviously.
when you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact

when you say ORANGE MAN, in my opinion, is utterly morally disgusting you offer opinion

the first, by your reckoning, is false

the second, by your reckoning, is all you have

quit tryin' to have it both ways
Wrong. Since there are no moral facts, any moral assertion expresses an opinion which can't be factually verified or falsified. The linking verb 'is' has a different function in factual and non-factual assertions. Merely insisting that it doesn't begs the question.

If I say 'This painting is beautiful', I'm expressing an aesthetic opinion - and I can always explain my reasons for doing so. But if someone else says 'No, this painting is ugly - for these reasons', there's no way to settle the matter. There's no aesthetic fact of the matter. To appeal to an 'aesthetic FSK', in which there are aesthetic standards, is merely to beg the question.

Now, pari passu for moral assertions.
this doesn't seem right at all

you assume wrongly any one reading ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting will take it as opinion simply becuz you adhere to a moral anti-realism...you assume readers will defer to your interpretation...obviously, this is wrong-headed of you, and more than a little insultin' to those of us who reject your view

if your intent is to communicate: do it clearly & fully...avoid presenting your opinion in the guise of fact...don't presume
Post Reply